Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 5, 2003.
Ah yes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Scary thing is the numbers for what they consider paverty. If you make under $10,000 a year around here, that would barely cover rent costs. Hope you don't want to eat.
And one of the reasons: many poor people keep having children.
Another reason, current divorce laws. Men are screwed big time when it comes time to child payments and such. Men's Health did a great feature article on it a month or two ago, but I can't find a link to it on their website right now.
who indoctrinated you into your particular style of conservatism?
Seeing all the moron white trash in Wisconsin who piss and moan about being poor and that they need government help, then say excuse me as they need to go tend to their fourth child.
i recommend travel.
A majority of the people in the US that are below the poverty level are in rural america.
Look at the statistics. If nearly half of them are children, then there's about two children for every parent. Take into account how there's some that don't have children at all and you start seeing how many have three or more children. With the exception of triplets or more, that's inexcusable IMO. People need to learn to become more responsible for themselves.
Well it sure doesn't have anything to do with the 2.5 million jobs lost in the economy over the past three years. Anybody who lost a job is just plain careless.
yeah, what were they thinking? taking a job that could actually be lost
Lost! Harumph! They've just been misplaced, on another continent that is.
Meanwhile, 5% unemployment is what economists think is ideal.
Looks like we're doing just fine.
Actually, most economists think 3.5-4% is an ideal number. There is a huge difference between your 5% and the current rate of 6.1%. Also the problem doesn't lie totally with the actual number of employed people, it also lies with the quality of jobs available. WalMart may be the largest employer but the jobs it offers are pretty dismal. gw & co. seem to be encouraging those kinds of jobs and exporting all the good paying ones. Oh well, only 16 more months of his sinking ship to put up with.
Let us hope so...
the official unemployment numbers do not reflect the number of people who are out of work and have stopped looking for jobs. that number is growing.
...says the guy who has yet to enter the workforce and actually support anyone, right?
according to ABC news:
on World News Tonight, Peter Jennings said that's the first net job loss since the Depression.
from the same site:
doing just fine, eh? care to make an association between those "wisconsin whiners" and these rosy job statistics?
You have no idea how many people you've just insulted, including me, by implying that having more than two kids is irresponsible and are somehow related to the deadbeat welfare-family legend stereotype.
You need to pull your head out of whatever it's stuck in and get real. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and come off as an arrogant, idealist, immature wannabe social engineer.
My mom and dad had three kids.
Their parents had twelve and ten kids, respectively. There is nothing more beautiful than a huge, happy family. Try attending a picnic in my family and see if you still think such things are the stuff of white trash.
I am utterly disgusted by your implication that large families are irresponsible or that I am descended from white trash.
Grow up or shut up.
Sometimes, all I can do is shake my head. Oh, my god I hope this is not indicative of the beliefs of many people in the fair state of Wisconsin.
RobVanDam, when this administration's economic policy can be summed up in the phrase "tax cuts and more tax cuts for the wealthy" it is amazing to hear someone look at statistics that show huge job losses and the only response you can muster is:
American workers are among the most productive in the world, what did the good folks who had the misfortune to be laid off do that makes you think they should be ignored. I'm sure you've done a scientific study to show that they lost their jobs because they were secretly welfare-whiners who had too many children! Or is it all those women who must be ripping of their poor ex-husbands? No, I know, it must be that too many of them were silly enough to vote for a candidate that lied to them about "compassionate conservatism"!
We can solve the poverty problem and the children in poverty problem by eating the poor children. This is but "A Modest Proposal ".
Soylent Modest Proposal is people!!!!
That is very true; nowadays they [divorced fathers] are guilt-tripped practically into thinking that regardless of who has the kids, they are obligated to pay the wife. Remember the feminazis? 'we just want equal rights...' yeah, its real equal.....
I can't remember the exact numbers, but the aggregate figures for divorced couples show that the man's quality-of-life goes up about 78% and the women's quality-of-life goes down by roughly 48%. This happens regardless of whether alimony or child support are being paid and on time.
Which is why men almost always lose the children, house, and usually do worse at their jobs immediately after the jobs?
I should have noted that my figures are for one year following the signing of the divorce papers. That is, exactly one year after, the man is 78% better off and the woman 48% worse off.
In the short-term (i.e. the first couple of months), you're absolutely right. All the same, it's rare for men to get taken to the cleaners.
My boss got divorced about a year ago and while he lost the house, he's undeniably doing better economically than he was a year ago (purchases of expensive cars don't lie).
What's lost in all of this is the fact that divorce shouldn't happen at all. I think it is horrible that no-fault divorces are relatively easy to obtain, and even when fault is declared, it's bad that the guilty party does such things to his/her spouse to begin with.
In a perfect world, men wouldn't beat their wives (although in up to 60% of domestic-abuse cases, the woman hit first), women wouldn't waste their husbands' money, and married couples wouldn't wake up and decide they don't love each other anymore. Simply put, there would be no reason for divorce.
feminazis? Whoa, tazo, my friend, you've got to turn off the AM talk radio and look around a little more. I know you're not speaking from the personal experience of being divorced, so what's all the vitriol about equal rights for women? Would you rather that women don't have rights to such things as alimony and child support? By the way, men have rights to such things as well if necessary. Or is it you just don't like the whole idea of divorce? Who does? But what's the alternative, forcing people who can't stand each other to stay married?